That's the whole point. Thanks for finally seeing it. - Edit 2
Before modification by Shannow at 19/11/2012 09:50:09 PM
not some blended thing that only works for your special math
That's exactly the point I'm demonstrating.
IF a linear normal distribution is to apply, then the rules of a linear normal distribution HAVE to be true in all instances. Else it's not a normal distribution.
Hence, in a linear normal distribution, Daigian - being stronger than 37.5% of the population- would HAVE to be exactly 0.32SD below the Mean.
Thus, if one is at any stage able to prove - based on undeniable evidence from the books - that the rules of a normal distribution are impossible to apply to the strength distribution among channelers, then it is proof that channeler strength is NOT represented by a normal distribution.
THAT is what I am demonstrating. The fact that it is impossible to have Daigian at 0.32SD below the Mean, given the evidence from the books, means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for this distribution to be a linear normal one.
Do you understand now?
Daigian being 0.32SD below the Mean is not possible if the channeler population is a normal distribution. Because then you would not have room for 2SD's on the lower side, never mind the 5 or 6 SD's we see on the upper side.
What I have said is: If a normal distribution applied, x and y HAVE to be true. Since x and y clearly cannot be true, given the evidence from the books, a normal distribution is disproven.
The only solution is that we are not dealing with a normal distribution here.